-
Correct but a £24K student loan is not insignificant.
Where I studied (Netherlands) years ago your parents must give you X if they refuse the government gives it. Then you can borrow Y for cheap at the government. Uni fees were £2000 they are a bit more now.
So in most cases parents paid part, the loans did the rest, I had to pay back £500 for 10 years. My parents paid the fees. But £8k a year they could have just about managed, maybe but I can't. I'm saving just in case my son goes to uni.
I agree with fees and redistribution but the middle class also is the main tax base and there's only so much squeezing one can do.
I wonder if it pays off in the end with defaulted loans. Maybe free education with more progressive taxation fills the pot better.
Lfgss economics chat then :)
-
I heard something on the radio about it recently. According to the show, the fact that all these loans are being made but most will never be fully repaid is just kicking the can down the road - it means that the books are balanced for now, but future governments will have to deal with the shortfall of all the loan money that was given out but not repaid in however many years' time.
-
That's interesting. I benefited from a free university education, and admittedly would find paying for tuition now a less-than-welcome prospect.
The reason I raised the point is not so much to champion the idea itself, but rather to show a different perspective on a policy that has been universally criticised. Its overall intentions were never articulated at the time (for whatever reason), and had I not heard Nick Clegg talk about it, I would not have been able to appreciate it in a different light.
But students only have to pay back if they earn above the income threshold and unpaid loans expire eventually too. Not everyone will actually pay the full amount. Plus, free university education disproportionately benefits the middle class, because their children make up a large part of the student population and the saving is meaningfull to them.